Access to durable LVAD therapy for patients with limited social support: Surveying program-specific approaches.

Racial and ethnic disparities in provision of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy have been identified. These disparities may be at least partially related to socioeconomic factors, including social support networks and financial constraints. This study aimed to identify specific barriers, and variations in institutional approaches, to the provision of equitable care to underserved populations. A survey was administered to 237 LVAD program personnel, including physicians, LVAD coordinators, and social workers, at more than 100 LVAD centers across 7 countries. Three fourths of respondents reported that their program required a support person to live with the LVAD patient for some period of time following implantation. In addition, 31% of respondents reported that patients with the inability to pay for medications are turned down at their program. The most significant barriers to successful LVAD implantation were lack of social support, lack of insurance, and lack of timely referral. The most consistently identified supports needed from the hospital system for success in underserved populations were the provision of a solution for patient transportation to and from hospital visits and the provision of financial support. This survey highlights the challenges facing LVAD programs that care for underserved patient populations and sets the stage for specific interventions aimed at reducing disparities in access to care.

Preventing driveline infection during left ventricular assist device support by the HeartMate 3: A survey-based study.

PURPOSE: Driveline infection (DLI) is a significant source of morbidity and mortality during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support yet limited studies are available to describe the center-level prevalence, preventive practices, and their potential effectiveness. METHODS: We surveyed LVAD centers in the United States to determine program burden and preventive practices for DLI during HeartMate (HM) 3 support. An online, anonymous, question-based survey was sent to expert providers at implanting centers. Only a single respondent completed the survey for each center. As an exploratory analysis, we compared specific DLI preventive practices between centers with low (≤10%) and high (>10%) reported prevalence of DLI. RESULTS: Seventy-eight centers responded to the survey (response rate: 50%). Respondents were comprised of 37 (47%) heart failure cardiologists, 27 (35%) LVAD coordinators, and 14 (18%) cardiothoracic surgeons. The prevalence of DLI during HM3 was reported as ≤10% by 27 (35%), 11%-25% by 36 (46%), and >25% by 16 (19%) centers. Thirteen (17%) centers had a body mass index threshold for device placement, 29 (37%) utilized a counter incision, 66 (81%) placed an anchor stitch, and 69 (88%) used an external device to stabilize the DL. Proportionally, more centers with a low DLI prevalence used a wound vacuum 6 (22%) versus 3 (6%, p = 0.03) than those with high DLI. CONCLUSION: Variation exists in reported prevalence and practices of preventing and managing driveline infections across centers during HM3 support. Further studies are warranted to develop and assess the effectiveness of standardized preventive strategies.